Pelosi lies about opposition to "torture"

[ccbatson]

This just in; Documentation that Nancy Pelosi was briefed, more than once, on the status of enhanced interrogation techniques [[torture as she now refers to it) but did and said nothing to oppose it dating from 9/02 have surfaced.


Egg on the face? Or worse...an illustration of the lack of a moral compass and corruption?

[Mikeg]

Egg on the face? Or worse....

Pelosi's got something on her face all right but I don't think it's egg, it looks more like a mask or something.....

Regarding the "or worse", it's the incompetence. Not only does she stonewall when caught in a white lie causing it to mushroom into a major distraction, her leadership style as Speaker of the House has rubbed a lot of House Democrats the wrong way. Combined with the demonstrated inability of her and Senate Majority Leader "Pinky" Reid to get and stay on the same page, it will be a three-ring circus as they attempt to put their own personal stamps on the President's legislative agenda.

[rb336]

no, simply more evidence that she was a lap dog for the bushies and should be dumped as speaker

[Bobl]

no, simply more evidence that she was a lap dog for the bushies and should be dumped as speaker

True. There were too many lap dogs, including the press.
Pelosi and Reid should just go away. They are part of the problem, not the solution. New blood is needed.

[firstandten]

Thats another reason why the Obama administration wants to let the public know about the torture but doesn't want to focus on it especially now. He knows that Dems were involved in at least being aware of it and not doing anything The political blowback would not help getting his agenda passed.

[Lorax]

In the speaker's defense, you are not allowed to disclose classified info to anyone while in her position.

Sure, the Tushies were great at including their enemies in being complicit in their crimes, however, I will take her word that these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were discussed, but not in the context that they would actually be used. Until evidence to the contrary becomes available, in black and white, then we need to give her the benefit of the doubt.

[ccbatson]

Laughable...not disclosing is different than flat out lying about it and taking the opposite position.

[mjs]

Thats another reason why the Obama administration wants to let the public know about the torture but doesn't want to focus on it especially now. He knows that Dems were involved in at least being aware of it and not doing anything The political blowback would not help getting his agenda passed.

A conservative guest said the same thing in a debate on the Bill Moyer's show that followed Obama's 100 days speech. The liberal guest responded that thats why we need an investigation even if Obama has to prepardon everyone before the investigation begins. So there can be an open, honest, non-political, intelligent debate. His point was that if Americans really feel that torture is necessary, respect our Constitution and word in the international community and have our laws and treaties say so.

To quote the legend of Josy Wales- "There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

[Gistok]

This just in.... looks like some folks have finally admitted that torture was administered under the Bush administration... otherwise why bring it up??

[Flanders]

Thats another reason why the Obama administration wants to let the public know about the torture but doesn't want to focus on it especially now. He knows that Dems were involved in at least being aware of it and not doing anything The political blowback would not help getting his agenda passed.

How much traction would the Dem minority in Congress gained in the US, had they attempted to blow the whistle on the Bush administration and try to put a stop to the "advanced interrogation techniques" being used by the US military on captured detainees, with the events of 9/11 still so fresh in everyone's psyche, and the invasion of Afghanistan just begun and the invasion of Iraq yet to begin?

They would have been of course accused of being unpatriotic and sympathetic to the "enemy" but to a far greater degree than they still are to this day. With 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, the fanatic terrorist elements of the Islamic faith have an unlimited pool of human resources to recruit from. Unless the US were to begin a systematic and vastly ramped up genocide of Muslims, as was done to native North, Central, and South Americans for 500 years, there is absolutely no chance of "victory" in the war on terrorism...ever.

Conservatives proclaim that the war on terror is defending our freedoms, but there is another and far more formidable and ominous enemy that is a much bigger threat to our freedoms, communist China, whose own "freedoms" are indirectly being defended and who has greatly benefited as well by the blood being shed by our troops and from the vast sums of money being borrowed from them and spent to support and finance it, and their troops have not even suffered a paper cut as a result, nor have they assisted in providing any military support, in the Middle East, while importing oil from Iran, who is their largest supplier, while the US biggest supplier of oil is Canada.

[Bobl]

I am not a supporter of Ms Pelosi, and wish she would just go away, for many reasons. What baffles me is why the same people who criticize her for "not doing anything" about the use of torture [[ or "enhanced interrogation techniques") are the same, in many cases, who supported and still support the administration of chickenhawks who were responsible for it. Kind of a straw man debate. If Ms Pelosi is to be condemned when she could do nothing other than speak out, why no condemnation of those who could have stopped it, or never let it happen?

[Flanders]

This just in; Documentation that Nancy Pelosi was briefed, more than once, on the status of enhanced interrogation techniques [[torture as she now refers to it) but did and said nothing to oppose it dating from 9/02 have surfaced.


Egg on the face? Or worse...an illustration of the lack of a moral compass and corruption?

You are posing this as a question?

Must be due to the fact that you didn't bother to include a link to an unbiased source, but then we should know by now that your compelling arguments and rational thought should suffice.

[Mikeg]

Jon Stewart ridiculed Ms. Pelosi last night on "The Daily Show" for her waffling and shifting explanations about what she knew about the CIA use of waterboarding and when she knew it:

According to Stewart, she has “basically gone from ‘I definitely was not told’ to ‘I was told but they used an auxiliary verb with a slightly more passive mood.�

The fact that Ms. Pelosi has managed to turn this molehill into a mountain is a testament to her incompetence. She wanted to "play politics" with this issue and instead it is exploding in her face. Is she really the best leader the House Democrats can find?

[Big Dog]

Her lie is minute compared to the Bush lies, like the war etc. You lost, get over it.

[Mikeg]

Her lie is minute compared to the Bush lies, like the war etc. You lost, get over it.

If you had read my comment closely, you would have noticed that I indicated her lie is turning "this molehill into a mountain", but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you perhaps just glossed over that. However, I will not acquiesce to the "get over it" comment. As we heard so often from President Bush's critics, "dissent is patriotic" and I've every right to state my opinion. I do not have to quietly accept incompetence from any elected leader, regardless of their party affiliation.

From the shallowness of your response, I would have to conclude that you are either unwilling or unable to offer any defense of Speaker Pelosi's leadership.

[mjs]

Her lie is minute compared to the Bush lies.

I'll say it again, "her lie is peanuts. . ."

This just in on yahoo news. Pelosi didn't lie.

They absolutely unequivocally did not tell me about the torture.- Old Pelosi Paraphrase

This just in, they did tell me in specific detail about how they believed it was in their power to do it and how they would do everything in their power to stop terrorism. However, I am a politician and I'm not used to working with people that say what they mean. Besides, I thought it would only cause trouble if I threatened that if they did do it, I'd enforce our treaties and laws. As everyone knows, I never liked to challenge statements from the Bush Administration.- New Pelosi Paraphrase

Do you work for Pelosi's PR team? Watch Mikeg's link to the Daily Show.

[mjs]

Man, having this contoversy in the news right now might take the spotlight off of Obama's push to bring meaningful reform to the credit card companies. I know that's the last thing the bankers wanted to see when they gave Pelosi that half a million dollars. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...wMem=N&recs=20

[ccbatson]

MJS...that threat level is logical hindsight...not possible in foresight.

[mjs]

The intelligence analysis reports and volume of intel flowing in at the time contradict that claim: "Bin Laden Attacks May be Imminent", "Bin Laden and Associates Making Near-Term Threats", "Bin Laden Threats are Real" and an August 6th Presidential Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". The chapter name is from a Tenet quote summarizing the situation as experienced prior to the attack. The 9/11 Report is long, but the chapter isn't. Its available at your library and an excellent read.

[Lorax]

No, actually they don't contradict.

Ask Richard Clarke- and read his book as well. He was, after all, the one in charge.

I may recommed John Dean's books of late:

Conscience of a Conservative, Broken Government, and Worse Than Watergate.

[mjs]

Lorax, my premise was that when people go off half cocked repeating you're either against us or your for us, lets kill them all, turn the middle east into a parking lot, freaks, towel heads, and numerous other racial epithets, the weaker politicians are going to do something we regret.

[Lorax]

I couldn't agree more. So what's the point?

What you're describing is the kind of rhetoric from Bush followers, and ideed, Bush's own cowboy diplomacy.

[mjs]

I haven't read Clarke's book yet so correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding was that he disapproved of how Bush responded to the threat of Al Queada, not that an Al Queda attack was a suprise to the intelligence community. He may have even been arguing that the intelligence resources were too underfunded to learn of the details of a specific attack in time. We had all the pieces of the puzzle in time, we just didn't have enough resources to put the puzzle together prior to 9/11/01.

[mjs]

What Bush rhetoric? I said Clinton missed an opportunity to kill UBL and Bush missed an opportunity to foil his plans.

My point is that the overwhelming majority was saying it. Not just conservatives. I was there. I remember thinking, isn't there any opposition to this?

[mjs]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Ben Franklin.

I can at least respect the opposition if the argument is simply whether we should pass a law to allow torture it if it gets results, but saying that the exec honestly thought the methods were legit or that Pelosi had no inkling of their intent is another story.